Any confirmation of story that Israel plans to invade Syria??

[Emillereid]

Israel plans to invade Syria, says Malaysian PM

Saturday, 11-Oct-2003 3:20AM
    
Story from AFP
Copyright 2003 by Agence France-Presse (via ClariNet)




PUTRAJAYA, Malaysia, Oct 11 (AFP) - Israel plans to invade Syria and drag the United States into the war, Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad said Saturday.



"Israel has been urging America to invade Syria, but America seems to be reluctant. So, in order to force the hands of America, Israel is going to invade Syria," Mahathir was quoted as saying by the official Bernama news agency.



"When that happens, the Americans will have to support Israel due to domestic political reasons that make Jewish votes a major factor in its presidential election," he said....

http://www.ptd.net/webnews/wed/cg/Qmalaysia-syria-israel.RRob_DOB.html
edited to provide link

Since we're sort of bogged done in Iraq (those Iraqis just won't cooperate), have we handed the baton to Israel to implement the neo-con vision to re-make the middle east. We'll let Israel take care of Syria and bomb Iran's nuclear facilities -- using our pre-emptive logic -- while we continue to destabalize the middle east, keeping everything nice and fragmented -- and weak. Wonder if we've promised Israel anything in particular for their team effort?

[ElsewheresDaughter]

1. i think NOT...if Israel does they will NOT get my children to kill or be

for them...NO MORE!!!

[mdvet]

4. military

I dont think Israel would need the US armies help in invading syria, the US took Iraq with what 4 divisions, Syria is organised along the lines of the Iraqui army, but a lot smaller. Israel is a superpower in the middle east, its soldiers have a vast qualitive advantage over any of their arab neighbours, command and control is light years ahead, and most importantly the Israeli army has a corp espirit than none of their enemies can match.

[neverforget]

2. We don't have the troops to invade Syria AND occupy/pacify Iraq.

If Israel were to invade Syria, all hell would break loose in the Middle East.

[DuctapeFatwa]

6. Which is precisely why the US will deploy its Israeli troops to Syria

The Israeli forces are skilled and experienced at liquidating civilian populations, and once a robust presence is established, they can man the Syria-Iraq border and help pave the way for Israel's natural-growth expansion settlements in Iraq.

[mdvet]

10. liquidation

it dosent look like the Israelis are that good at liquidating civilian populations, as you like to point out they killed 3000 palis in the current intifada, the nazis killed that many in an hour, saddam killed more than that in one village, assad and hussien both killed more in a day, need i go on.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Classical_Liberal]

17. This person may or maynot be a freeper

but there is a rule against calling them one. 2)though I am definately antisharon I thought mr fatwa's comments were a bit over the top myself.

[DuctapeFatwa]

27. Somebody called me a freeper? Kewl! I got called a Zionist the other day

And all I really am is just a humble Enemy of the State.

[Classical_Liberal]

30. They called the person who objected to your comments a freeper

.

[DuctapeFatwa]

33. oh, poo. I got all excited.

:pout:

[KharmaTrain]

12. Israel's Natural Growth 300 Miles Away???

I've heard the Mesopotamia To Mediterreanean mantra of the Ultra Orthdadox Jews and some Likkud, but even as goofy, maniacal and arrogant, Sharon would just be happy with the "Judea & Sumaria"..." (Israel & West Bank), with the Golan, Gaza and Southern Lebanon (some say the entire country) as a buffer zone.

Even those scenarios are logistically almost impossible...especially in a hostile area. If you think it's hot for 150,000+ American soldiers with Kevlar (hopefully that's gotten there by now) how will Israel occupy that land with settlers with AK-47's (probably not any more armed than the hostile neighbors) and stretch the Israeli Army was beyond its borders.

A genuine peace will only start with the removal of Likkud, but when moderate Israeli governments attempted to negotiate in good faith with the Palestinians and hostile Arab countries, subsequent attacks played right into the hands of the Israeli hardliners.

Middle East peace won't be close to comprehendable without TWO sides that negotiate in good faith.

[Classical_Liberal]

14. The attacks didn't start unil Labor played right in the hands

of Likud that they gave Arafat a generous offer, and Sharon appeared at the Al Aqsa mosque provoking fears of ultra orthodox terrorism of the site in order to rebuild the temple.

[KharmaTrain]

29. Both Sides Were Spoiling...

To say Labor played into Likud's hands with the failure of Camp David is implying they were complicit in the latest round of killings. I hope you don't mean that. Likud, just as they did with Netenyahu, was able to exploit Labor's willingness to dialogue as a sign of weakness...a tactic employed by the Right Wing in this country.

Both Sharon & Arafat used Al Aqsa for their own political purposes...and the blood of thousands are on both their hands.

[Classical_Liberal]

32. They are complicit. They are even willing to serve in Sharon's coalition

Mitzna tried to really oppose Sharon, but 3rd old geezer of I/P politics Shimon Perez wouldn't let that happen. He and his allies deposed Mitzna, and joined Sharon's coalition government, and they are definately helping Sharon do his dirty deeds.

[KharmaTrain]

35. Perez got far more credit than he deserved

He also served precious little assistance to Barak during Camp David '99. And, yes, they have served in coalitions, but I don't connect this into playing into Likud's hands.

Wouldn't the Democrats like to have someone of cabinet level in a Repugnican regime? This is common in parlimentary systems...especially in Israel where a majority is rarely accomplished.

[Classical_Liberal]

37. Peres has stated" Opposition isn't necessary!"

Don't kid yourself bud. He is helping Sharon, by deliberately not providing an alternative view or resistance to his policies. He hasn't moderated Sharon one least little bit, and he has admitted that he is not trying too. In deliberately agreeing with Sharon, he is providing no incentive for Israelis to change coarse. It is irresponsible as hell.

[KharmaTrain]

40. Where Is Responsibility?

Again, I feel Perez has gotten far more credit for "peacemaking"...which he never did. He held back Rabin, too...but is that pandering or complicity?

The real missing voices are moderates in both sides...I don't read the Jerusalem Post as I once did (too much Tom Rose and pro-Likud for me), thus its hard to get a real feel for the moderate situation within Israel.

I live in no dillusions about the expansionist agendas of RW and Ultra-Orthdox Jews (the power base of Likud), but to say that anyone who serves in a coalition cabinet is abeting their overall agendas is being a tad disengenuous.

Unfortunately any alternative view, Israeli or Palestinian, has no chance.

[Classical_Liberal]

41. The moderate voices are missing because Perez

and his followers have deposed the moderate voices, and they agree with Sharon on everything. If he doesn't oppose Sharon, how can their be a moderate voice? There is no daylight between Peres and Sharon on this occupation. Peres killed the opposition that existed. Does Peres have to tatoo I love Likud on his forhead before you see?

[DuctapeFatwa]

34. Yes. You see, the sedentary lifestyle has increased obesity in Israel too

The current settlements are simply not wide enough to accomodate the adipose consequences of a combination of more and plumper Plus Size Israelis and the natural inclination of a devoted people to emulate the Prime Minister.

It has been suggested that the entire nation of Iran may be required for the PM's proposed new hygiene suite.

[Saudade]

7. Yes

"If Israel were to invade Syria, all hell would break loose in the Middle East."

--Which is exactly what Israel wants.

[Classical_Liberal]

36. They wanted the Iraq war too, and this is an even worse prospect

.

[Must_B_Free]

3. I hope they do!

these countries will hang out a "welcome" mat.

"We welcome you bombs. Come right in rich suckers and blow off your bombs - we'll be waiting here with our hands out for your financial support after you have finished destroying our buildings. We could use some new schools anyway."

[dwmcqueen]

5. Ummm

They are not that stupid - I don't think even the US would support Israel in a blatant act of aggression.

However, I think the US opened the door for such things base don its new 'Preemption Doctrine.'

[DuctapeFatwa]

8. The US just supported Israel in one, and is in fact engaged in one itself

The US supports the Policy of Starvation and the Torture Lottery.

There is absolutely nothing that Israel can do, no matter how blatant, brutal or revolting, that the US will not support 100% and pay for with your tax dollars.

As a matter of fact, US has already started destroying crops in Iraq and is about to cut off UN food aid.

[dwmcqueen]

9. Full invasion != [non-]selective strike

The point is full military invasion with a replacement of the Syrian regime. I don't think the US would support such a move (since the media would report on that).

However, it would be a hilarious Catch-22 the US would be in. Either back a doctrine it created or prevent the full-scale invasion of an independent nation. Hilarity would ensue....

[DuctapeFatwa]

31. The media is learning that obedience to the regime =fewer funerals

of murdered colleagues to attend.

Also, invasion of Syria will make it possible for Little Israel to at last show her gratitude for the unwavering loyalty and unconditional support of the various "operations" of the Most Moral and Humane Army in the World.

Israeli civilians will gladly fend for themselves, happy in the knowledge that those brave reservists who are not afraid to face the savagery of ten year olds throwing rocks at the very tank in which they sit, are doing their part to defend Halliburton's freedom to have an absolutely spectacular 4th quarter.

[Classical_Liberal]

11. Won't work. The antiwar votes would be much more critical

to both parties than the prolikud jews and their fundy christian friends. I sware I won't vote for any candidate that backs anymore stretching of our military or a draft and i fucking mean it. I know I am not the the only one. There will be 10 times the number of anti-imperialist agression voters the day after this happened. If Israel did it they would be on their own and they would have to hold it just like we have to hold Iraq. I am not going to claim it is paranoia, this neocon crowd is givin to selfdestructive hubris.

[Flying_Pig]

13. That's the PNAC/Likud plan....

Helped along by all of the "pro-Israel" congressional persons, including all the Dems who voted for Syrian sanctions last week. Don't these Dems know they're helping Bush and PNAC's plan for world domination by voting for this crap? Don't they know they're helping Bush's re-election (sic)? ...Sure they know... anything for Israel, as they sellout our own nation, and the world, right down the tubes.

<>

[Classical_Liberal]

15. They are reaching the law of diminishing returns

The voters won't tolerate any expansion.

[Julien Sorel]

18. The average American voter is utterly clueless about the topic.

If this story is true, about which I have my doubts, Israel would not go ahead with the plan unless it was green-lighted by the administration. I believe Clark spoke about this possibility in the last debate, although no one in the media paid attention to it.

True or not, the root scenario makes sense. The public would not support the U.S. invading Syria on trumped-up charges as they did in Iraq; however, they would have few problems riding to the rescue, as it were, of Israel if Israel found itself in the oh-so regrettable position of being 'forced' to invade. This has already happened once, if you'll recall, in Lebanon; to this day I doubt that one American in 50 understands what went on there, yet the U.S. did send some soldiers over there after Israel stirred the hornet's nest with an invasion. With the U.S. already in a martial mood, and no Soviet Union to act as a balance, I see no reason the public would blanch too much at the prospect of going after Syria, as long as it was positioned in the right way, say, we had no choice but to come to the aid of an 'ally.'

[Classical_Liberal]

19. It doesn't matter whether they want rescue israel. They can't

and they know they can't. Their aren't enough troops period. Not with out a draft and if that happens there will be hell to pay. The clueless can't ignore the loss of unwilling sons, and they won't give up the sons for Israel even if they sympathise with it for the most part. Won't happen. I am not saying it isn't possible the neocon crazies won't try, but I am saying it absolutely won't work, and it will be the end of them.

[Julien Sorel]

25. I'm not so sure. Syria is not the fragmented

morass that Iraq is -- it's somewhat cohesive as a nation in the full sense of the word. It would be easier to install a puppet regime there than in Iraq. The aim of an attack would be to knock Syria out, shove some kind of horseshit deal down their throats with regards to Golan, install a puppet regime to keep order, and then get out. All the U.S. would have to do is help the Israelis keep order in the interim, while providing diplomatic coverage in the U.N., as always. Mind, I think this idea is unlikely to actually happen, but it does have a certain logic to it, and I believe there would be next to no domestic fallout as a result; in fact, it would probably boost Bush's popularity.

This was, incidentally, close to Israel's plan with regards to the Lebanon attack more or less: knock out the PLO, consolidate its grip on the West Bank, and then, if possible, establish a 'Palestinian' state in Jordan, where the Palestinians could be shunted. Israel in general, and Sharon in particular, are no strangers to launching wars based on complex, cynical schemes. I actually think this one would be simpler than the 'Little Pines' invasion of '82. Syria fouled that one up by playing smart and rolling with the punches; there is no one to take Syria's place this time around.

[Classical_Liberal]

28. The fact that it will present a united front of opposition to us

makes Syria worse than Iraq. Any country that invades still has to occupy, and the opposition will be ten times worse if that invasion begins with the Israelis.

[wildwww2]

39. The neocon crazies will never even come close to Democracy in Iraq!

But they still have enough Americans stupid enough to allow the use our good troops as cannon fodder for a self governing system that will never happen in any of our lifetimes. But we are going to throw money into it instead of our childrens education. Bu$h is the worst leader a country could ever have. And all these good advisors we always hear being bragged about. Are never on the same page. Ever! Lead by neglect and corporate media cover up. That should be and I do believe is the Bu$h Inc. motto.
Peace
Wildman
Al Gore is My President

[iangb]

42. Perle's plan "A Clean Break"

Back in '96 Perle led a study group which prepared a 'plan' for the then new PM Netanyahu.

<snip> "Securing the Northern Border

Syria challenges Israel on Lebanese soil. An effective approach, and one with which American can sympathize, would be if Israel seized the strategic initiative along its northern borders by engaging Hizballah, Syria, and Iran, as the principal agents of aggression in Lebanon, including by:



striking Syria’s drug-money and counterfeiting infrastructure in Lebanon, all of which focuses on Razi Qanan.


paralleling Syria’s behavior by establishing the precedent that Syrian territory is not immune to attacks emanating from Lebanon by Israeli proxy forces.


striking Syrian military targets in Lebanon, and should that prove insufficient, striking at select targets in Syria proper.
Israel also can take this opportunity to remind the world of the nature of the Syrian regime. Syria repeatedly breaks its word. It violated numerous agreements with the Turks, and has betrayed the United States by continuing to occupy Lebanon in violation of the Taef agreement in 1989. Instead, Syria staged a sham election, installed a quisling regime, and forced Lebanon to sign a "Brotherhood Agreement" in 1991, that terminated Lebanese sovereignty. And Syria has begun colonizing Lebanon with hundreds of thousands of Syrians, while killing tens of thousands of its own citizens at a time, as it did in only three days in 1983 in Hama."


more http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/archive/1990s/instituteforadvancedstrategicandpoliticalstudies.htm

Also of interest is that, according to a more recent study Israel can field more troops and fly more sorties in the region than the US could manage.

[legin]

20. Possible scenario

That gets round the lack of troops problem.

A lot of troops are due to be rotated out and replaced in Feb/March.

So the replacement troops because of the complexity of the situation, decide to turn up 2 or three weeks early to do on the job training with troops who have been in Iraq for a year.

This is supremely lucky because things start turning nasty between israel and Syria so 30,000 troops move to the Iraq/Syria border.

Syria then committs a gross atrocity (yet to be decided on) so israel is forced to invade Syria from the south and the 30K u.s. troops invade from the east to help out their beloved ally.

Meanwhile the troops that have been in Iraq for a year are told that because of the changed situation their tour of duty has been extended by six weeks.

israel and the u.s. knock out Syria in about a month. The 30K u.s troops leave israel to be the occupying army in Syria and go back to Iraq to do their tour of duty there. The troops that have been there for a year and now a bit can then leave for home.

[Classical_Liberal]

21. Since the troops that are there presently will be zombified with trauma

by such an event. It doesn't solve the problem of not enough troops. They will be walking wounded, not troops. I personally know a man that goes to sleep crying every night about his son in the sunni triangle, and you better believe that is getting to our state and national reps. I was against the war but even I couldn't invision the trauma this is inflicting on the military families.

[legin]

22. Its the fresh troops that are rotating into Iraq

that do the fighting.

Lets say 1000 killed or injured. Still leaves 29,000 for a years gaurd duty in Iraq.

The 3rd infantry division had to take Baghdad and then stay out there for over six months.

[Classical_Liberal]

24. The reason they haven't gotten the present troops out is that

there aren't enough replacements. How do figure? Even at replacement level there is no room for Syria. You seem to forget that their presently aren't enough of them in Iraq.

[Capn Sunshine]

23. If Israel invades Syria

It will be kinda "biblical" and the plains and valley of Armageddon are in the highlands along the Syrian border, are they not?

Bush's bible-whumpers would LOVE this

[Classical_Liberal]

26. It would also expose them for the antiamerican nutballs they really

are, and discredit them for ever. Halleluja Amen brothers and sisters.

[0rganism]

38. Aren't they supposed to take a number or something?

They're behind us in the Syria invasion line, dammit! No cuts!